Quick follow up (on the off and small chance anyone still cares). Went back to my Locke to be sure I was getting him right.

Locke, unlike Hobbes, who thought without government it as a war of all against all—no one has a right by nature to anything because in the absence of a constraining force (i.e., a sovereign) everyone has a right to everything by force, Locke thought we had a natural right to our own bodies since by nature our bodies are ours. Someone else cannot appropriate our body for his own. This extends to a natural right to property because when we put our labor into something (e.g., tilling a field), we put our self into this and our self is our own. Thus, natural property rights.

But a lot of the material in the Bill of Rights? Free speech, freedom of religion, press, guns, trial by jury, etc, etc. No one had before argued this stuff is natural. And really, I side with Hobbes rather than Locke.

The idea that the government does not establish and guarantee rights is a useful but of political kabuki theater—it makes us feel all the more protective of rights to think them natural as opposed to arbitrary or subjective. But there is no obvious appeal to reason by virtue of which a lot of what we wish to claim as a right by nature is really by nature.

For example, freedom to speak without being inhibited in doing so is dubiously a right by nature. Freedom of THOUGHT, on the other hand, is arguably a right by nature. Being rational by nature, we have no choice but to have thoughts. But having a right by nature to express yourself without consequence? Utter horsehit. That, friends, is ESTABLISHED by the Bill of Rights and guaranteed by the government. It is a fine thing that it is established for us.

_________________#CdnSteelerFanStrong

Orangesteel wrote:

We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.

I do agree with Lit that the Bill of rights and the Constitution are frameworks for the Government. It is the Government that enforces the rights and the laws. If you want to put Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness as natural rights then have at it.

I still say this law, if passed, if fails in the courts

_________________"Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people." --Doris Egan

Quick follow up (on the off and small chance anyone still cares). Went back to my Locke to be sure I was getting him right.

Locke, unlike Hobbes, who thought without government it as a war of all against all—no one has a right by nature to anything because in the absence of a constraining force (i.e., a sovereign) everyone has a right to everything by force, Locke thought we had a natural right to our own bodies since by nature our bodies are ours. Someone else cannot appropriate our body for his own. This extends to a natural right to property because when we put our labor into something (e.g., tilling a field), we put our self into this and our self is our own. Thus, natural property rights.

But a lot of the material in the Bill of Rights? Free speech, freedom of religion, press, guns, trial by jury, etc, etc. No one had before argued this stuff is natural. And really, I side with Hobbes rather than Locke.

The idea that the government does not establish and guarantee rights is a useful but of political kabuki theater—it makes us feel all the more protective of rights to think them natural as opposed to arbitrary or subjective. But there is no obvious appeal to reason by virtue of which a lot of what we wish to claim as a right by nature is really by nature.

For example, freedom to speak without being inhibited in doing so is dubiously a right by nature. Freedom of THOUGHT, on the other hand, is arguably a right by nature. Being rational by nature, we have no choice but to have thoughts. But having a right by nature to express yourself without consequence? Utter horsehit. That, friends, is ESTABLISHED by the Bill of Rights and guaranteed by the government. It is a fine thing that it is established for us.

I just don’t agree. The Bill of Rights did not establish any rights. In fact these first 10 amendments in no way shape or form modified the original articles of the Constitution. All the Bill of Rights did was clarify the rights that the founding fathers believed we already had and were entitled to. And the only reason these individual liberties even had pen put to paper was a compromise between Federalists and anti-Federalists, a compromise that was necessary to get enough states onboard to ratify the constitution. The reason our government exists is because these rights already existed and the government was formed to ensure and protect them. The government didn’t ESTABLISH these rights. These rights are what ESTABLISHED the government.

_________________Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."

SteelPro, in the Federalist papers, they argue indeed for natural rights.

I’m not talking about intent.

I’m taking a position on what I think is the case for rights.

If you think freedom of speech without abridgement is a right by nature, you need only explain what a right is, what right by nature is, and why the rights you take to be by nature are so.

I can see it for certain forms of property and life if I squint really hard, but Hobbes’ arguments are persuasive for me.

As far as what established the government, well there is the final cause, the moving cause, the material cause and the formal cause.

As far as moving cause of the government, humans gathered and decided to form one by contract.

Typed on phone hope it makes sense.

Why does it matter that a right need be defined by nature or not? Why for you does it come down to parsing the teachings of 17th century philosophers? There are differing philosophical opinions you know? Existentialists believe humans are radically free and existence precedes essence. And I believe that thinking makes sense when considering these rights. Whether you consider these rights to be natural or simply basic human rights that evolved from the human condition, people most certainly feel they are entitled to them. The responses when denied of these rights is to fight or flee (which is a really damn good argument for saying that they are to some degree natural). The point is these rights however you want to box them existed in the minds of nearly all human beings and that predates the Constitution. Again, I don’t believe our government even exists if not for the existence of these rights. The preamble clearly states the purpose of our government is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves”

_________________Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."

SteelPro, in the Federalist papers, they argue indeed for natural rights.

I’m not talking about intent.

I’m taking a position on what I think is the case for rights.

If you think freedom of speech without abridgement is a right by nature, you need only explain what a right is, what right by nature is, and why the rights you take to be by nature are so.

I can see it for certain forms of property and life if I squint really hard, but Hobbes’ arguments are persuasive for me.

As far as what established the government, well there is the final cause, the moving cause, the material cause and the formal cause.

As far as moving cause of the government, humans gathered and decided to form one by contract.

Typed on phone hope it makes sense.

Why does it matter that a right need be defined by nature or not? Why for you does it come down to parsing the teachings of 17th century philosophers? There are differing philosophical opinions you know? Existentialists believe humans are radically free and existence precedes essence. And I believe that thinking makes sense when considering these rights. Whether you consider these rights to be natural or simply basic human rights that evolved from the human condition, people most certainly feel they are entitled to them. The responses when denied of these rights is to fight or flee (which is a really damn good argument for saying that they are to some degree natural). The point is these rights however you want to box them existed in the minds of nearly all human beings and that predates the Constitution. Again, I don’t believe our government even exists if not for the existence of these rights. The preamble clearly states the purpose of our government is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves”

Bc if not by nature, then the rights are by agreement among men. And that would destroy your position that rights precede the formation of government. Your whole position rests on it. That is why I am exercized about whether these rights are by nature.

Yes, we agree that our government exists for the sake of guaranteeing rights. But if you cannot show that rights are by nature, you are in no position to deny that government establishes the rights it exists to guarantee. Which is what you found scary.

_________________#CdnSteelerFanStrong

Orangesteel wrote:

We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.